The theory of evolution, whether micro or marcro is a complete fairytale. Read on for the challenge.

Charles Darwin, who died over 100 years ago and was ignorant about genes, cells, and basically every biological process, claimed that natural selection (differential breeding success) was the CAUSE of adaptation and evolution....that any variation that arose was just a crazy accident in a single lucky individual and therefore his beloved NS got the credit for proliferating this accident, thus slowly swaying populations in adaptive directions via reproduction. This still is, to this day, the theory of evolution.

So in order to qualify as "evolution" -- whether it be micro or macro -- natural selection must be the cause. Not only that, but in order to qualify as "evolution" natural selection must select from a randomly-arising genetic event (mutations)....in this way evos would have an explanation of how genomes came to be: the selection of random genetic events. If natural selection is not the cause of a genetic adaptive trait, then it is not, by definition, "evolution," as it is not an example of how how a genome (or part of a genome) could come to be accidentally.

Here is Talk Origins' confirmation that in order to qualify as "evolution" that natural selection must be the cause.

"Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution;"

Dobzhansky:

"The process of mutation supplies the raw materials of evolution, but the tempo of evolution is determined at the populational levels, by natural selection in conjunction with the ecology and the reproductive biology of the group of organisms"

Simpson:

"Adaptation has a known mechanism: natural selection acting on the genetics of populations

Haldane:

"Variation is in some sense random, but natural selection picks out variations in one direction, and not in another

Mayr:

"It is most important to clear up first some misconceptions still held by a few, not familiar with modern genetics: (1) Evolution is not primarily a genetic event. Mutation merely supplies the gene pool with genetic variation; it is selection that induces evolutionary change."

Gould:

"The essense of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies the raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change."

So back to my assertion that microevolution is a fairytale:

In order for microevolution to occur, what science needs to show is an example of what their theory actually says, which is that randomly-arising genetic changes get proliferated by natural selection.

I have yet to see a single example. Of course evos will peer into the genome and observe that genomes change on cue in the face of environmental threats, but that does NOT prove their theory -- all that proves is that the genome can somehow restructure itself upon need. There is no proven randomness, there is no spontaneity, there is no selection, there is no death, there is no differential breeding success, there is nothing to prove "evolution," as defined by the theory.

Likewise they'll look out into nature, observe a populational change in organisms, and just blindly give the credit to "evolution," (aka natural selection acting on random genetic changes) despite the fact that there's never scientific evidence that "evolution" actually did it...even worse, often there is no confirmation that the adaptation was even genetic. They just blindly proclaim "evolution" and hope people buy it.

What's worse, evos are afraid of conducting the types of controlled experiments on animals that would validate their silly selectionist theory because they KNOW what would happen: what would happen is that each individual who was placed in an environmentally-stressful situation would respond purposefully, adaptively either during development or during its lifetime after conception. Not only that, but the change very well may not be genetic, which leaves open the question of what actually caused the change in the first place...(aka "mind," "Intelligence," "purposful response," etc)

So the challenge here, is for evos to present me even ONE example -- one controlled scientific experiment -- of microevolution, macroevolution or any other sort of evolution that demonstrates that natural selection has caused a genetic adaptation via the selection of a random genetic event in the animal kingdom. You must show the mutation and you must show that natural selection proliferated it.

I think you're oversimplifying the "evo" stance. The theory of evolution has changed considerably since Darwin's day; like any good scientific theory, it is revised and updated as new evidence comes to light. So I don't think it helps to rely entirely on what Darwin himself wrote; as you pointed out, he had no way of knowing about cells, genes, etc.

Natural selection is not the cause of variation; what it does is select which traits survive to the next generation. Nor is it completely random, as you seem to be defining random. As you pointed out, it occurs as a response to environmental conditions. "Evolution" describes how a population changes over time; these changes are factual and not theoretical. The theoretical side of evolution comes into explaining how these changes occur. Most modern theories revolve around genetics, but the recent discovery of epigenetics seems to indicate that there may be more to evolutionary change than genes alone.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

Hi supersport. Evolution, generally, is a slow process involving changes in allele frequencies over long periods of time. But sometimes we help to speed up the process when we apply strong selection pressures. (A note on terminology: as alextemplet alluded to, natural selection is a mechanism, not a cause.) Good examples come from the study of drug resistance. Check out the literature for antibiotic, antifungal, anthelmintic, insecticide, or multidrug resistance. Known polymorphisms (sometimes) that have been demonstrated to confer resistance, observed changes in allele frequencies in populations as resistance develops. We also effect changes in our various efforts at breeding, as Darwin noted and exploited as support for his proposition. Virtually all our domesticated sources of food, both plant and animal, are the result of selecting for changes in populations based on the characters we want to develop (higher yield of meat, milk, hair, etc., more or less of this or that, etc.). Look at the variety of cats and dogs.

Okay, I'll admit it's been quite a few years since I last read Origin of Species, but did Darwin claim that natural selection was both cause and mechanism? I remember he spoke to great extent of natural selection as a mechanism, but I don't remember that he ever addressed the cause of variation at all. Of course, as primitive as the science of heredity was at the time, he can perhaps be forgiven for not even trying to understand how it works.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

And to answer Alex, Darwin did not adress the cause of evolution. He reasonned on his observaions (diffreences between generations) and derived his theory from that. Later biologist added knowledge and merged what was discovered in genetics with Darwin framework to create our modern synthetic theory of evolution.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

How about regional distribution of HIV immunity in human populations? I read in Carl Zimmer's Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea that the parts of Europe hit hardest by the beubonic plague also have the highest rates of resistance to HIV. Apparently the same gene provides immunity to both viruses.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

well you gave me the example of sickle cell....first of all, this is not a controlled experiment which verifies evolution happened. All we know is that there are some people in infected areas who have acquired immunity. This in no way explains or proves how it happens. A mutation may have occurred which has conferred resistance, but nobody knows for sure if this was actually a random mutation, as the theory requires, or if it is a genetic response of individuals who are developing in the presence of malaria...(in their mothers). 2nd of all this is not a morphological trait...I'm asking about evolution from bacteria to man -- this requires an astonishing amount of new morphology. I don't deny change and that organisms have the ability to restructure their genomes in the face of crisis, what I deny is common descent from "ancient" body plans to "modern" ones.

As far as resistance goes, it's the same thing. First of all, most resistance involves horizontal gene transfer, not mutations. Also, in order to prove darwinism, science would have to rule out that individuals (during development or even later in life) requiring their own resistance...this would require a scientific experiment. To PROVE darwinism one cannot simply point to a population that has appeared to generate a new trait and blindly give the credit to RMNS, as change can happen in numerous ways.....I'm asking for validation of this mechanism via the scientific method. This would require a scientific experiment/study/observation on real-life organisms/animals.

You're not doing your homework very well, supersport. Try again with searching the literature - the scientific literature (please, no more Googling - where did you get this lateral-transfer business from?). OK, you can Google for PubMed, but then do the rest of your searching there. Also try searching for the term "experimental evolution" (on PubMed). There will probably be some open access articles that you can download and read. Evolution is a slow process. Asking for single, controlled experiments that prove it in animals is a bit naive (hey, give me a non-mathematical example of anything that is proven beyond all doubt). Could you give me an example of a single, controlled experiment that disproves evolution? And you have the edge - disproof is a heck of a lot easier than proof (see above).

I would also suggest researching comparative anatomy; that is, comparing the structures and organs of various organisms. The biology class I just finished taking during the summer semester covered a lot of comparative anatomy among eukaryotes. Once you see how similar various phyla are to each other, and the progressive chronology evident in fossils from simpler to more complex organisms, it really makes you wonder why anyone challenges evolution at all.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.